IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 150 CWP-18344-2026 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 PAWAN KUMAR AND ANR. ...Petitioners Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, Addl. A.G. Haryana *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking direction to respondents to release compensation in their favor which was deducted as a share of gair marushi tenant. 2. The petitioner’s land was acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Land Acquisition Collector passed award dated 07.09.2013 qua compensation of acquired land @ 888 per square yard. They filed reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act 1894. Tenants did not file reference qua the disputed amount and did not claim any compensation. They challenged award of reference Court by way of appeal before this Court which vide order dated 10.01.2020 enhanced the market value to ₹ 1180/- per square yard (for land falling upto the depth of 2 acre from NH22 and for land abutting Pinjore Nalagarh road on the northern end, upto same depth and for land beyond the said depth of 2 acres, from both side the market value of the land was assessed @ ₹944/- per square yard along with all statutory benefits). Both landowner as well DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.21 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18344-2026 -2- as State of Haryana filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2021. The petitioners filed application for execution of High Court’s order and learned Executing Court while releasing the compensation recorded the statement of concerned Patwaris that share of the Gair Marushi tenant namely Parmanand son of Rulia as mentioned in Farm-D at Sr. No. 2 may not be released to them. Execution application has been disposed of vide impugned order dated 02.02.2026 withholding part of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Parmnand s/o Rulia did not file petition under Section 30 still part of compensation has been withheld in his name. 4. A perusal of order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-4) reveals that petitioners have withdrawn their execution application as they were paid part of compensation. The Revenue Officer pointed out that part of compensation as per revenue record relates to Parmnand. The petitioners have neither challenged order passed by Executing Court nor approached authorities lodging their claim. This Court in this backdrop cannot entertain the writ petition, 5. Dismissed. 6. The petitioners are at liberty to avail remedies qua their claim in accordance with law. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE July 20, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.21 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment